Cimino v. Elliott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cimino v. Elliott

227 A.D.2d 986, 643 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6979

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 31, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 986 (Cimino v. Elliott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cimino v. Elliott, 227 A.D.2d 986, 643 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a summary finding of criminal contempt made against him by respondent during the course of a hearing at which petitioner was testifying. Petitioner argues that [987]*987the summary finding should be annulled because he did not cause a disturbance and his behavior was not violent, physically obstructive or disrespectful to respondent. We disagree. The summary finding of criminal contempt was authorized because petitioner’s contumacious and unjustified refusal to answer respondent’s proper questioning "disrupted the orderly proceedings of the court and demonstrated a lack of respect for the authority of the court” (Matter of Mitchell v Wiggins, 195 AD2d 1069; see, Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1], [5]). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a summary finding of criminal contempt made against him by respondent during the course of a hearing at which petitioner was testifying. Petitioner argues that [987]*987the summary finding should be annulled because he did not cause a disturbance and his behavior was not violent, physically obstructive or disrespectful to respondent. We disagree. The summary finding of criminal contempt was authorized because petitioner’s contumacious and unjustified refusal to answer respondent’s proper questioning "disrupted the orderly proceedings of the court and demonstrated a lack of respect for the authority of the court” (Matter of Mitchell v Wiggins, 195 AD2d 1069; see, Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1], [5]). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 986, 643 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cimino-v-elliott-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack